Easy I'd take the 2013, they seem to be the more complete team with better depth. The 2005 defense was a bend but don't break outfit. IIRC Seattle lead the league in sacks. Had it not been for that Seattle would have been very average on defense. In contrast the 2013 defense returns virtually everyone of consequence and upgrades to most of those that left ie ( Trufaunt for WInfield, Avril & Bennett vs. Jones). The 2012 defense was the #1 ranked defense in points allowed #4 in yards allowed. This is the first time since I've followed the Seahawks (since 2003) that Seattle has a bona fide arse kicker of a defense. Before I was a Seahawks fan I followed the Tampa Bay Bucs when they had the stingiest defense around. Seattle's 2013 defense has the ability to reach close to those heights IMO.

Meanwhile the 2005 offense was great when it was clicking. But it wasn't dominant per se. I remember even that year being infuriated at the inconsistencies of the Seahawks offense. Other's teams could drive at will, SEattle at times was hot or cold. If you remember that EPIC game against the Giants when we won in OT after their kicker missed 3 FG's. We'll late in that game and in OT, Seattle struggle to get a single first down. That's how it seemed in 2005, when it was on, it was amazing, when it struggled it really had a hard time moving the ball.

Examples we lost to the Jaguars in week 1 and Washington im week 4. Both of which should have been W's against lesser teams, instead the offense was held in check the entire time. The only reason we beat the Rams on the road was due to a punt recover to ice the game. If you recall the 49ers game on the road. Seattle allowed a HORRIBLE 49ers team to come back and was within a 2 point conversion from tieing the game.

My point is the 2005 team was a great memory, but there were significant holes in that squad on BOTH offense and defense. I think that the 2013 squad is a more sound football team. With better talent on defense and on offense in the passing game for 2013 over 2005.

Right side is a wash as both teams have adaquate but not great right sides.

I'd take the combination of 2013- Lynch, Turbin, Robinson, Vs- Alexander, Morris, Strong.Strong and Robinson are a wash. Alexander beats out Lynch barely. Turbin is a much more gifted player than Morris.

I don't think there's a single player in the 2005 Defense that would start for the 2013 Seahawks with the exception of 2005 Leroy Hill... and that's possibly only because we haven't drafted yet.Marcus Tubbs might have made it in, but he's no gimme.

On offense it's a different matter, but Russell Wilson is more enjoyable to watch, and our receiving corps is probably better all around the board, right now I'm not sure if any of the 2005 corps would get into our team, Engram would probably push out Baldwin, but both would be the 4th receiver.Jurevicius had a decent season, but we aired the ball out more in 2005 than last year, and I reckon our top 3 guys are more than capable of surpassing that.

I still have to go with 27 TD Alexander over Lynch and by some distance and our 2005 left side but really those are the only 3 players that would represent a substantial upgrade over what we currently have (and before anyone gets into the Alexander/Lynch debate, I'm basing this PURELY on Alexander's 2005 season vs what I expect from Lynch in 2013, not their careers or styles. Fact is, 2005 Alexander goes down as one of the greatest seasons by a RB of all time, 11th in yards all time and 2nd in TDs, definitely worthy of the MVP).

But that said, the 2005 Seahawks made the Superbowl. It all counts for nothing is the 2013 Seahawks don't, though I know which team I'd rather watch

themunn wrote:I don't think there's a single player in the 2005 Defense that would start for the 2013 Seahawks with the exception of 2005 Leroy Hill... and that's possibly only because we haven't drafted yet.Marcus Tubbs might have made it in, but he's no gimme.

On offense it's a different matter, but Russell Wilson is more enjoyable to watch, and our receiving corps is probably better all around the board, right now I'm not sure if any of the 2005 corps would get into our team, Engram would probably push out Baldwin, but both would be the 4th receiver.Jurevicius had a decent season, but we aired the ball out more in 2005 than last year, and I reckon our top 3 guys are more than capable of surpassing that.

I still have to go with 27 TD Alexander over Lynch and by some distance and our 2005 left side but really those are the only 3 players that would represent a substantial upgrade over what we currently have (and before anyone gets into the Alexander/Lynch debate, I'm basing this PURELY on Alexander's 2005 season vs what I expect from Lynch in 2013, not their careers or styles. Fact is, 2005 Alexander goes down as one of the greatest seasons by a RB of all time, 11th in yards all time and 2nd in TDs, definitely worthy of the MVP).

But that said, the 2005 Seahawks made the Superbowl. It all counts for nothing is the 2013 Seahawks don't, though I know which team I'd rather watch

I would choose big Walt and Hutch for the LH OL. Justin Smith would be a non-factor regardless of his health. 8-)

themunn wrote:I don't think there's a single player in the 2005 Defense that would start for the 2013 Seahawks with the exception of 2005 Leroy Hill... and that's possibly only because we haven't drafted yet.Marcus Tubbs might have made it in, but he's no gimme.

On offense it's a different matter, but Russell Wilson is more enjoyable to watch, and our receiving corps is probably better all around the board, right now I'm not sure if any of the 2005 corps would get into our team, Engram would probably push out Baldwin, but both would be the 4th receiver.Jurevicius had a decent season, but we aired the ball out more in 2005 than last year, and I reckon our top 3 guys are more than capable of surpassing that.

I still have to go with 27 TD Alexander over Lynch and by some distance and our 2005 left side but really those are the only 3 players that would represent a substantial upgrade over what we currently have (and before anyone gets into the Alexander/Lynch debate, I'm basing this PURELY on Alexander's 2005 season vs what I expect from Lynch in 2013, not their careers or styles. Fact is, 2005 Alexander goes down as one of the greatest seasons by a RB of all time, 11th in yards all time and 2nd in TDs, definitely worthy of the MVP).

But that said, the 2005 Seahawks made the Superbowl. It all counts for nothing is the 2013 Seahawks don't, though I know which team I'd rather watch

That is the biggest point of 2013 with Russell and this team they can make plays, keeping you on the edge of your seat

I vote for the 2013 Seahawks with the idea they don't regress from the 2012 Seahawks. The base for the 2013 team is created from a style that I find very enjoyable to watch. The other reason is that the culture and divisional environment is much more highly regarded. jwaters1 did a great job of recapturing the lows of the 2005 season and also there was the criticism in 2005 that the Seahawks played in a non-competitive division. Sins of the father type of association going on there.

Had many arguments with the NFCN and NFCE folks that flaunted SOS as the jockeying for playoff seeding was unfolding. Still remember that joker Bayless saying how a #1 seeded Seahawks team didn't deserve to be in his Superbowl. I doubt anyone will be second-guessing this team if it makes it to the promise land. I like that.

Now they just have to go out there and actually do something because all this talk is worth only the hot air we all are blowing.

themunn wrote:Jurevicius had a decent season, but we aired the ball out more in 2005 than last year, and I reckon our top 3 guys are more than capable of surpassing that.

I think the 2005 Jurevicius would break into the lineup simply because his skill set and size would be a great fit for Russell and this particular team.

At the expense of who?His skillset is most similar to that of Sidney Rice, with a bit more strength, almost like a quasi-TE - a hybrid of Miller and Rice.However, we don't need really need a player of that mould as we have the two mentioned above, and looking back, was he really that impressive?10 TDs is nothing to scoff at yes, but he only had 694 yards on 55 receptions.For comparison, Rice and Tate both had 7 TDs and 748/688 yards respectively on 50 and 45 receptions. Those were our number 1 and 2 receivers, I expect both tallies to increase significantly this year, even with the addition of Harvin.I don't think he'd replace any of the three above and certainly not Miller either.

According to FO, the 2005 Hawks was vastly superior on offense to the 2012 Hawks. It's not even close. That team was the #1 offense. The 2012 Hawks defense was vastly superior to the 2005 Hawks. 2012 Hawks had the leagues best defense.

The 2005 team won the Super Bowl. The 2012 team didn't make the Super Bowl.

Until the 2013 team proves they're better than the 2012 squad, the 2005 team is still the best.

Richard Sherman doesn't just wanna get in your head, he wants to build a vacation home there.

SalishHawkFan wrote:According to FO, the 2005 Hawks was vastly superior on offense to the 2012 Hawks. It's not even close. That team was the #1 offense. The 2012 Hawks defense was vastly superior to the 2005 Hawks. 2012 Hawks had the leagues best defense.

The 2005 team won the Super Bowl. The 2012 team didn't make the Super Bowl.

Until the 2013 team proves they're better than the 2012 squad, the 2005 team is still the best.

FO has it right. The 2005 team didn't lose one of their most critically important players to an ACL and then have to play on the road to a rested 13-3 team at 10am. Postseason results are a poor way of evaluating a team. TONS of luck involved.

Keep in mind too- the Hasselbeck/Holmgren era Seahawks never won a playoff road game. Wilson won his very first, and should have won his second despite a pair of major handicaps.

Leroy Hill played for both teams and said the 2012 version would win by at least a touchdown.

SalishHawkFan wrote:According to FO, the 2005 Hawks was vastly superior on offense to the 2012 Hawks. It's not even close. That team was the #1 offense. The 2012 Hawks defense was vastly superior to the 2005 Hawks. 2012 Hawks had the leagues best defense.

The 2005 team won the Super Bowl. The 2012 team didn't make the Super Bowl.

Until the 2013 team proves they're better than the 2012 squad, the 2005 team is still the best.

FO has it right. The 2005 team didn't lose one of their most critically important players to an ACL and then have to play on the road to a rested 13-3 team at 10am. Postseason results are a poor way of evaluating a team. TONS of luck involved.

Keep in mind too- the Hasselbeck/Holmgren era Seahawks never won a playoff road game. Wilson won his very first, and should have won his second despite a pair of major handicaps.

Leroy Hill played for both teams and said the 2012 version would win by at least a touchdown.

So what you're saying is the best way to judge a team isn't by their postseason results, but by their regular season results?What's the point in even having the postseason if it's all just luck?The 2005 Hawks went 13-3 and went to the superbowl.And whilst yes, we lost Clemons, if you think that one player is the reason we lost the game then maybe we should really be saying Marquand Manuel cost us the Superbowl?He might not be as good at his position as Clemons, but the drop off from his to Eric Pruitt is far greater than Clemons to Irvin.

You're playing a game of what-ifs again, even if we didn't lose Clemons and beat Atlanta, we still have to go to San Francisco and beat them. Sure we beat them at the CLink, but the playoffs are a different beast, and it's still not gimme that we would have beaten them - especially considering they managed what we couldn't and travelled to Atlanta and won.

I *think* the 2012 Seahawks would beat the 2005 Seahawks in a one-off one-on-one match up. But until another team matches their achievement, the 2005 Hawks are still the benchmark that everyone in the team should be striving for, not the 2012 Hawks.

SalishHawkFan wrote:According to FO, the 2005 Hawks was vastly superior on offense to the 2012 Hawks. It's not even close. That team was the #1 offense. The 2012 Hawks defense was vastly superior to the 2005 Hawks. 2012 Hawks had the leagues best defense.

The 2005 team won the Super Bowl. The 2012 team didn't make the Super Bowl.

Until the 2013 team proves they're better than the 2012 squad, the 2005 team is still the best.

that '05 team was good...obviously, they made it to sb...but, and this could just be me, i HOPED they were going to win...

but with '13 edition, i KNOW they are gonna win...and it comes down to qb play really...the original matty ice was very solid, but he had his times when he was off, offense was too...key on alexander boom offense done...this version way more weapons as well as better defense...

i'm actually surprised at how not close this is in my mind, especially since '05 went to sb...'13 version by a mile...

The Outfield wrote:Oh, and let us not forget, the 2005 team did win the Super Bowl. Just not officially.

Journalism is dead, it's been replaced by creative writing aka fake news.Critical thinking is pretty much dead too. I miss the hearsay rule. The concept of "ethic" has been stripped from the Journalism curriculum.